tv [untitled] January 9, 2013 4:00am-4:30am PST
attorney robert brian who will provide thec i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. we are joined by city departments5c%( qez that have cases before the board. scott sanchez, zoning administrator, and planning department and planning commission, stey, representing the department of building inspection john quawng. the board requests you turn off9k%z!ñ or silence all phones and other thereinh[9k7t devices. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows.rhce appellants permit holders have seven minutes each to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude within these three or seven minutes. members of the public have up to
three minutes each to address the8 9m board and no rebuttal. please speak into the end of the microphone. to assist the board preparation of minutes you are asked to submit a speaker card to board staff. speakere>bí are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the podium for your convenience. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board's rules orl8 schedules speak to staff during the meeting or call or visit the board office at 1650 mission street in sweat 304 which is located between dubois and van ness avenue. this is rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 pm on channel 26. dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sf gv.
we will swear in those who intend to testify. if you wish to have the board give your testimony evident den shear weight stand, raise your right hand and say i do after being affirmed. note any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to their right under the sunshine ordinance. do you solemnly swear or affirmc the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. we have two housekeeping items this evening. regarding item 4(d) which is a rehearing request at 70 elk street having to do]ij renovations at glen canyon park the request has been withdrawn by the appellant. item 5 appeal 12-135, having to do with denial of a tree removal permit at 2121 third street parties have requested that thisnj
matter be moved to the board's january 30 calendarmo.nz to allow foro4( more time for settlement discussions. we need a vote of the board in order to move that item. >> i'll move to continue to january 30. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this÷a seeing none then vice president fungle commissioner hurtado, aye. commissioner lazarus, aye. commissioner honda, aye. >> public comment, is there anyone here who would like to speak under item 1? seeing none, then item 2 is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners, do you have anything this evening?njr" >> i will be absent a at the january 9th meeting due to work obligations i just learned about.
is there public$ bé comment on item 2? thank you. seeing none we'll move on to the adoption of minutes under item 3, commissioners for your consideration are thete3 board's meeting minutes of our december 5, 2012lypizd meeting. >> i'm going to move to adopt those minutes. >> thank you. any public comment on the minutes? seeing no public comment, on the motion to adopt the minutes vice president fung, aye. commissioner hurtado aye. commissioner lazarus aye. commissioner honda, aye. >> those minutes are adopted. so we will then take up item 4(a) whichbjae is a -- two rehearing requests, subject 4&c8 )qj at 124-128 fillmore street. the board received a letter requesting rehearing of 12- --
at that time the boardd:÷d voted 3-0 to uphold the?@ in appeal 12-112 is deborah stott and the letter of determination is request to extend expiration date. and we will start with the requester. because there are two requests, you will have six minutes to present your case. >> i just want to note for the record i did view the video of october 24th on this matter and i'm able to sit for this matter today. >> i also reviewed the video, and i'm able to determine -- to view this as well.
>> can we'::l2ú turn this on. >> continue the overhead and refer to it. >> thank you. bret gladstone aside from me is david nale my client. david has had hiv and has been taking a very intense drug for 20 years which has as we've mentioned before impeded. one of the reasons that he's/%($r$ been impeded from completing the garage. the other included two appeals, one was a appeal to your boardq several years ago on whether or not he should have a graj at all, followed by a permit appeal to the planning commission on whether or not he should be able to have group housing at this location. as- planning commission, i think it was unanimous vote approved the group housing project which allowed him to prow garage permit. to have a rehearing the grounds
need to be among other things, that there's new facts that weren't available at the÷rpcrú time of the previous hearing. and let me start off with that. i guess that's still not on. thank you2jjk. right after the hearing of last month, i askedq send out the 311 notification because your decision that night was m extend the variance, to thefa that was coming up, 31 days after yourg your decision was -- he made right decision for the extension. i advised him, and mr. nale's disability attorney advised him in a letter the next day that he should immediately send out that 311 notification. he did not. and that is the event that we're here to talk about that is a new item for0n have a rehearing tonight.
mr. sanchez said that it was an emont impossibility for there to be a 311 triggered dr hearing because he could not act to send out the 311 notification until your board had a notice of decision in order, something that usually takes weeks to happen. and he felt it was an impossibility. but this ignores the fact that we had asked mr. sanchez and his scaf to send -- staff to send out a 311>e notification approximately six weeks before the hearing that you made your decision. we got a notification back that the planning department wouldf2 not make a 311 notification because an appeal had been filed by the neighbor on the factñ m!,75 extension was granted to 30 days beyond your nexto%(ú0n hearing. we also filed an appeabh::zp" we filed an appeal just to
preserve our rights. we got a e-mail from the planning staffer, acknowledged5hnnnp by mr. sanchez saying our appeal did not prevent the jt the 311 notification to4z however, his position was that the appeal by the neighbor did in fact prohibit him from sending out theeqb!6!ñ 311 notification. i think that was an error. there's no reason that if one party's request for a hearing before you didn'teh 8hñ stop him from sending a 311 notification, that the otherpjpi? parties should have. let me give you anea5 example. if he had sent out that 311 notification right after the dr brought by the neighbor, then withinqíd! 30 days ofkl pz that appeal, which would be before your hearing, the neighbor would have made the dr appeal. and the zoning administrator could have ruled that he'll take that dr appeal he won't schedule the hearing before the commission, he'll acknowledge the appeal that there is a right
to a hearing, but he won't schedule it pending your decision on the neighbor's request for you to rule that noza extension should have been givenu$: to my client at all. there was no reason why the zoning administrator couldn't have started that 311 process the day2njyafter the appeal by the neighbor was made. and then, if you had1n%( f decision, as you really did last month, that the neighbor's appeal was in error, and that mr. sanchez had made the right decision we would already have had a 30 day 311 period and a request for a hearing. and after the hearing you had a month ago, there would have been time to have an actual planning commission hearing before the n mt of the extension period, again which was 30 days after your last hearing. once again, the 3111 could have
gone out when the neighbor made the appeal, she could have filed it there could have been an acknowledgement that there was a right for a hearing, and then all mr. sanchez had to do was hold on from calendaring that hearing uijpñm after you made your decision. after you made your decision that her appeal had no merit, he could have had a planning commission hearing week later, week after that any time in the next four weeks,/%($s÷ before the 30 days had elapsed. he chose not to. as the disability attorney wrote -- i'll let david speak. come on, david. sorry. why don't you say -- we have only 30 seconds. >> no. i just wanted to say that the reason the last time the board made for the extension were made for me, there has never been an extension on my behalf -- >>18ja[@itju disability. >> for disability. it was always based on neighbors
or appeals% th%(úf&)q so those were the other extensions and those outlined in scott's letter. >> thank you. >> supervisor chiu: is there a problem with the)?jpnm overhead? you had something you wanted to display. no. so can we just ask you to put that back on the overhead for a minute and we'll see if the folks at sfg-tv can have that image broadcast. seems like there may be a problem. let's
off the overhead now. >> good evening,gc i don't have a whole lot to say. i stand by what i wrote in my briefs and what i said the last time. i believe that the planning department has been more than generous with david. i believe a lot of the delays were of his ownfpa÷ making. the original appeal was because he was running a hotel. and the use of the building, no matter -- no longer matched what was on the permit, which was a threexo!,a+xg9i6náu residential building. as far as me6f work on the 311, i'm not3:zp0ñ quite sure exactly what 311ó understanding is when david filed an appeal before i filed mine asking for -- saying he needed more time, in case he needed more time, it was kind of in reserve, but my understandingm:(
#7> was he filed an appeal, the work stopped. and in fact, when i went down and filed that appeal, i was told that the work had already been stopped -- or any motion, forward motion had already been stopped because of the appeal david had filed -- i think -- i don't know if it was a week or a number of days before my appeal. i think he'seg time. i think he was given back all the time that he attributes to the neighbors and the planning department wasting his time,?fpád basicallyh#( af. and as far as needing the garage to accommodate his disability, he's been renting it out i know he's been renting it out, because it's right next to my living room window, and i see the cars that's recently been rented out to the same person for about three months.
he wasn't there thisi whetheri building or gone home for the holidays or i could have just missed it, not seen it. i actually have an ad here, which -- i don't know if i -- do i just put this -- i don't think you could read it even if i put it down because the writing's so small but it's an ad from david's own website, welcome homezp'( ç3 properties, or -- i can't read it because i don't have my reading glasses but it's his own welcome home rental properties is theis the name of5o ly÷ it. at the bottom where he lists all the amenities underneath he has free parking available on the street. right below that he has parking space behind home available for rent. so saying he needs this parking garage because to accommodate his disability is false. he rents it out. and -- okay. i don't believe that -- i
believe that the planning -- the commission made decision when we were here on the 24th. thank >> president hwang: thank you. mr. sanchezo?b!ñ. >> thank you. good afternoon, president3dp@ hwang scott sanchez, planning department. as a reminder this is a letter of determination appeal relate toll validity of a variance decision letter issued on november 10,j@ro 2005 so a little over seven years ago. that was to allow construction of a garage in the required rear yard of the subject property. at the time we reviewel" building permit application it was stated that theétb6)ñ property was ;f the building permit for the the garage was actually issued and appealed to this board. the board of appeals denied that permit because ñ weññ% 6 overwhelming evidence that the building was usedcf::>÷ group housing. t™ come through and achieve+0%( "ñ
a building permit or received a building permit16p to legalize that use. now try to come back and go through this process.c7 yyou know maybe% understood the board's intention and i apologize if last hearing but the board didn't wantx8b3% to extendq4"bh it past november 23 rd extension ,÷ we had given and no extension of thejpe0 board pn[ is final until a decision is issued and that's why i did not feel comfortable having the process continue during the rehearing request period because anyone could have -- the party could have filed the rehearing request. also, to be clear, it's not about getting the 311 neighborhood notification done, it's not about havingd!r a&g discretionary review hearing by the november 23 date, it'sf:qc>
issued in that amount of time but i did not feel it appropriate to have the notice go out at that time without having the board have their final action. so if 2ññ the board -- if it is your intention to extend this to allow this variance to still be valid, then i would suggest that you would take rehearing and probably extend itag-ew forx years because that would be the length of time probably in order to go through the process just to be sure we're not back here again. but if it's the board's intention that enough kind of discretio.v-,,;n been shown by the zoning administrator and continuing out this decision letter, which was againñx÷ issued seven years ago, and it required issuance of the building permit within three years of that date. so we0+8bfñ are at four years over from when they should have received their building permit application. so that summarizes ourmdu arguments. defer to the board and how you feel.s+( /& if you feel the variance is still valid6rc
extendingt]d! of time a year at least. but if you feel theukpxñ variance is due you could deny3,b( the hearing request and they would have to come in for aj, request for the application. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> president hwang: is there any public comment on this item? please step t7 [ good evening, distinguished commissioners, la crishiaz÷ row. i've owned my property since 1989. this is a very narrow street. homes are so is close together that any existing open'( space between buildings is precious and must be preserved. adding an elevator garage to our narrow street will not only remove such a space but also increase traffic. the fact that david nale is requesting a rehearing should be a red flag to you that this
>> my name is ann thornton and i am making these statements as i have an interest in the unit across the street, 129 and 131 fillmore street. and i would like to argue against giving more time on this garage. on 20 -- 10-24 the board -- thiferred extension to construct his garage. appellant is claiming his disabilities justify construction of the garage and explain why p4he's taken so long to move on[" our position is that the reason he did=" project was not due to his disabilities but working on his illegal
conversion of a three unit building to a hotel a change he got approved after the fact of they& controversial before the planning commission in september 2011. when the commission split on the ex-facto approval of the post conversion of his building to an sro. by the way it was not a unanimousgzj9 hearing. our reasons for joining appellant !z deborah stott and reviewing the variance are these. this building permit was based on the assumption that the three story automatic garage was a separate structure and added that if itj9k% strcj"eñ the building permit was issued in error. in fact this garage is to be built one inch fromo i$ñ 124-128 fillmore street a pre1899 flat that is 11 feet wide and has only a brick foundation. the vibration of the noise from the large electrical motor is something to be considered in
building so close to another house with a brick foundation. the second major problem with this elevator project besides the structuralx is that such a project is not consistent with the current transportation and planning policies ofpolicies city of san francisco. this neighborhood where the proposed project is planned is part of the octavia market rto residential transit orientation. even contemplate having a garage through the structure of their historic houses and no house or apartment building in this area is required to offer parking. curb cuts and graves are now discouraged and living streets -- such as germaneia street. the proposed placement of new garage must take into account any negative events on existing dwelling units on the ground floor and in the case of this garage the effect on second and third floor. basically san francisco, we
changed our attitude. i believe in this -- of the city and each more inappropriate than it was when it was proposed a number of years ago. thank you. >> president hwang: thank you. is there any other public comment? okay. seeinji%bxñ none, then commissioners, the matter is submittedxj . >> vice president fung: commissioners, it was -- in reviewing the briefs on the rehearingzwn clear toq"t&xme at least from my1?ég/ point of view,qf) / that the extension was related to the acquisition of the permit, and not forse 311. the question of the 311 and the permit scheduling came upñepz during the course of that hearing, and it was -- as far as i'm
concerned, not new information. therefore i will not support a rehearing on.%($ >>?q 7ñ do you have a motion, vice president? >> vice president fung: i'm going to move to deny the rehearing request. >> i can call the roll. on that motion to deny the request president hwang, aye. commissioner hurtado, aye. commissioner lazarus, aye. commissioner honda, aye. >> that is passed and notice ofa decision will b┘:z(5 issued tomorrow. thanky,9khó you. item 4(b) is another rehearing request at 498 hoffman avenue a letter from2b:y allen sowle appellants requesting rehearing of appeal 12-117 decided november 7, 2012.
at that time the board voted"8btw iho 2-1-2 vice president fung dissented commissioner hurtado absent on the basis that there was no error or -- three out of four votes required to be overturn a modified action whenéd!elc"p% a vacancy exists letter ofy determination was upheld by law. the regarding the legal dwelling unit. my understanding commissioners hurtado and honda have reviewed the video there for this hearing and are >> that's correct. >> good evening. my name is alan sowle. we're here because extraordinarybb:z
discovered relevant to the hearing officer's determination on thiso p0ñ matter. you might remember, those of you that were here before, that this was a -- the originalv of noe valley. in 1988 a building permitted was issued to reduce this from( rv three units down to two units. and a notice of special restrictions were recorded but recorded against the>c9kñz the wrong property description so that my clients, when they bought the property some years later, had no notice of the notice of special restrictions reducing the property building count from three units to two.ap3y since ouruaüearing we discovered pg&e documents clearly showing that after that notice of special restriction wasoa recorded and after the building permit wasés%( issued reducing it from three k,8ñ units to two units pg&e was issued permits to install four electrical meters on the property, three gas meters on the property and